Appeal No. 1999-2553
Application No. 08/802,222
be the result. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection must
fail.4
As we have determined that the applied references are
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter, it is unnecessary for us to
consider the declaration of Dr. Bojar (Paper No. 12) submitted
by appellant to establish the nonobviousness of appellant's
invention.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the
examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 5, or of
claims 2, 4-8 and 10 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Steil in view of Moulton.
The deficiency noted above finds no cure in the teachings
of Helmer. Therefore, we also shall not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 9 as being unpatentable
over Steil in view of Moulton and Helmer.
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the4
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art applied (see In
re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85, 180 USPQ 580, 582-83 (CCPA 1974)) and that all
words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art (In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496
(CCPA 1970)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007